Aquino not blameless on pork scam

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas

I thought President Aquino was done blaming all the country’s troubles on the previous administration. But obviously, the blame game continues, and will probably go on for the duration of his term.

After a laudable State-of-the-Nation Address in July in which he did not blame the Arroyo administration for the country’s ills for the first time and instead spelled out his agenda for the rest of his term, Aquino is at it again.

Blaming Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for the rampant misuse of the Priority Assistance Development Fund (PADF), Aquino said on national television: “What has outraged our people was the collusion among a former President ready to trade favors just to remain in power, legislators, and members of the bureaucracy who were willing to conspire, enabled by a passive and indifferent citizenry. All these factors put together make the PDAF prone to abuse.”

And yet, it is common knowledge that under his administration, the pork barrel fund has almost tripled from the fund allocation during the term of Arroyo. If he has not abused it, he has abetted its misuse. When asked why the pork barrel allocation for the senators, congressmen and for his own office had been increased despite doubts that the funds are abused and misused, Aquino proclaimed in his usual self-righteous tone that it is because his administration is more transparent now.

The next day, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which broke the reports on the P10-billion pork barrel scam based on the revelations of a former aide of scam suspect Janet Lim Napoles, reported that the misuse of the pork barrel continued under Aquino’s watch with huge amounts being funneled into bogus non-government organizations (NGOs).

Citing public documents, the report said that between 2010 and 2012, some P500 million in PDAF funds went to fake NGOs through the Philippine Forest Corp., the office of Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala and National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor).

An earlier COA report, which confirmed Inquirer’s series of articles on the Napoles pork scam, said at least 12 senators and around 180 congressmen, through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), funneled P6.156 billion in pork barrel funds to 82 questionable non-government organizations (NGOs) from 2007 to 2009, 10 of which had links to Napoles, while six had links to sponsoring lawmakers through relatives.

The COA report covered only the period covering the last two years of the Arroyo administration, raising suspicions that Aquino is launching another of his numerous witch hunts in an effort to cover his own government’s failure to curb corruption.

When Aquino suddenly declared “it is time to abolish the PDAF” after steadfastly defending and justifying it for weeks, the move was immediately seen as an effort to douse cold water on the raging nationwide anger over the pork barrel scam and to preempt a planned million people march at the Luneta on Monday.

The motive was quite obvious, and instead of being lauded for “listening to the people,” the move only raised doubts on the sincerity and credibility of his reform agenda. In various statements and social network posts, angry citizens said Aquino was not sincere in his statements because he is abolishing the PDAF, but the pork barrel shall continue in another form or another name.

That the pork barrel system would not disappear under the Aquino administration became apparent when Budget Secretary Florencio Abad clarified that the P25.2-billion PDAF fund would still be in the proposed P2.268-trillion national budget for 2014, but the lawmakers will have to name specific projects as line-item appropriations in the budget.

Aquino himself is not giving up his whopping P1-trillion pork, officially known as the President’s Special Fund (PSF), which is almost half of the entire national budget. The lump sum fund effectively removes the constitutionally mandated power of the purse from Congress for half of the national budget because this fund is not subject to congressional scrutiny.

Why the President would need that tremendous amount for contingency fund is beyond me. Certainly, by allocating even half of that amount to put up the infrastructure needed, the need for contingency funds would be drastically reduced. For example, if part of the fund would be allocated by Congress to dredge the esteros and improve the flood control system, then contingencies arising from floods would be greatly reduced. If a sizeable amount of that fund is allocated by Congress to purchase needed equipment to more accurately forecast the path of a storm, then the need for calamity funds could be reduced.

With the President holding P1-trillion in discretionary funds, what will stop him from disbursing it to favored projects of senators and congressmen willing to do his bidding? Assuming that he is as clean as an angel, how can he effectively monitor the disbursements of such a huge amount knowing that less-angelic bureaucrats abound in the various agencies that handle the funds?

If Aquino is really sincere about his campaign to curb corruption, why has he refused to push the proposed Freedom of Information Act that would boost transparency and accountability in government?

In hopes of preempting the August 26 march, Aquino again made several promises – that the government would be more transparent in the handling of the people’s money, including the disbursement of whatever name or form the prok barrel would be known, and that there would be convictions in the pork barrel scam before the end of his term, etc. But the people are tired of promises. They want action and they want it now.

Aquino should heed the call of Vice President Jojo Binay to provide a full accounting of all funds disbursed under the PDAF, both under the Arroyo and Aquino administrations. In addition, the President should also provide a full accounting of his own pork barrel since he assumed office.

If he wants to appease the people and regain his credibility, Aquino should abolish the P25-billion lump sum appropriation under the PDAF and reallocate the fund for specific projects under the various government agencies, such as the departments of education, public works and highways, agriculture, etc. Let these agencies identify the projects needed in various congressional districts, provinces, cities and other localities in consultation with the governors, mayors and congressmen. This way, all the budget allocations would undergo the rigorous scrutiny of Congress and the public.

More importantly, Aquino has to exercise his full powers — in the same manner that he moved mountains to impeach Chief Justice Renato Corona — to facilitate the arrest and prosecution of the suspects and accomplices in the P10-billion pork barrel scam, even if it means tearing down his own Liberal Party.

This government can’t even find Napoles; how can it claim to dismantle corruption in the country that has been institutionalized through decades of abuse by its leaders and the indifference of its people?

Find and jail Napoles and company first, then tell us you’re ready to reform the government.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Without pork, Aquino is a lame duck

By RIGOBERTO D. TIGLAO
THE MANILA TIMES

Without the pork barrel funds, President Aquino will most likely be a lame-duck president for the remaining three years of his administration, and we will see a truly independent Congress after all these hypocritical three years. Even the controversy alone over pork barrel and Aquino’s efforts to deal with it will have consequences that will loosen his hold on Congress.

That senators and congressmen have supported Mr. Aquino because of his openhandedness in doling out to them the euphemistically termed Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), rather than because they are adherents of his tuwid na daan pseudo-ideology is obvious in the mammoth scale of such funds released by this president:

• These averaged P24.8 billion annually from 2011 to 2013, with the budget he approved for this year even increasing the pork barrel to P27 billion.

• This is three times the P7.4 billion annual average from 2008 to 2010, the last years of President Arroyo’s administration.

Source: Department of Budget and Management

Check out in the table, the senators who had the largest increases in their pork barrel in 2012, and you’d suspect they were merely brilliant actors debating law and ethics during Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment.

I had wondered then why the Left party-lists were the most vociferous in condemning Corona who stood firm against the landlord clan of the Cojuangcos in the Hacienda Luisita case in the Supreme Court. Check out how much they got in pork barrel during the year of the impeachment and these self-styled purported crusaders had pork-barrel money up to their ears.

Smarter than others of course was then Akbayan representative Kaka Bag-ao, who was even in the legal panel of the prosecutors. Few knew that she was a resident of the Province of Dinagat Island, and her support of the impeachment against Corona was just a step for her political ambitions.

After the trial, her reward was as Speaker Feliciano Belmonte’s “liaison” to the province, after the House of Representatives expelled its elected representative Ruben Ecleo, since the Supreme Court affirmed the graft case against him. As “caretaker”, Bag-ao got control of the province’s remaining P137 million pork-barrel, more than enough for her to win the May elections. Good-bye Akbayan, for her.

If Aquino abolishes Congress’ pork barrel, it would be his most important, game-changing legacy to the nation.

But he won’t, or can’t.

Unwittingly, Aquino himself belied his intention to abolish the pork-barrel system, when he explained what would replace it. By definition, pork barrel here and elsewhere is “is government spending for localized projects secured primarily to bring money to a representative’s district” so as to strengthen his political support among voters there.

Aquino will not be junking that system. He will merely make changes in its implementation.

Pork barrel is presently a lump-sum fund (officially P70 for congressmen and P200 million for Senators) the actual use in his district of which legislator determines after the budget has been approved and in place. Aquino’s proposal is for congressmen and senators to include the detailed use of the pork barrel as items in the appropriations bill they will be passing for approval by the President.

The only big change in Aquino’s scheme in terms of combating corruption would be that there would be a ban on appropriating funds to NGOs, many of which scandalously have turned out to be ghost entities. Aquino claims that the use of the funds will be “transparent” as these will be posted in government’s website.

Good luck, but I’d bet the corrupt in government and the business sector would find ways and means to rig biddings, which is usually done through dummy bidders.

Aquino’s new pork barrel system will continue with the allocations for “localized projects” but with one important change: He or his factotums, mainly Budget secretary Florencio Abad, would in effect still have the say to approve or not the actual release of the funds. If a legislator doesn’t do his bidding, his request for the release of funds for his district will be lost in the bureaucratic maze in the Budget department, told that there are no funds available, or silently ignored.

Legally impossible? Every congressman by law has P70 million annually in their PDAF allocations. How much has Zambales First District congressman Milagros Magsaysay, an articulate critic of this administration, received since 2011 under Aquino’s term? Zero. Not a single centavo. When she asked Abad to explain why, he arrogantly replied: “There are political realities.”

It will be a very rough time ahead for Mr. Aquino as he tries to put in place a new system for getting Congress to do his bidding.

First, he has ordered pork-barrel releases to be put on hold until “reforms” are in place. But until when? Every day that the legislators don’t get their hands on their pork barrel, Aquino’s leashes attached to their necks are loosened. It is likely that some legislators will question the legality of Aquino’s suspension since, after all, the PDAF is an item in the Appropriations Act they passed and which the President approved as a law of the land.

Second, what happens now to the budget proposal for 2014 that had the lump sum PDAF, which Aquino asked Congress on July 10 to approve? (Secretary Ricky Carandang boasted then that Aquino closely scrutinized the budget “because he wants to make sure that taxpayers’ money is being spent properly and efficiently.” That was less than a month before the pork barrel exposes triggered a firestorm of protest. )

Will Aquino withdraw it and rewrite it so that the use of pork barrel will instead be line items in the budget? Speaker Belmonte said that he has asked congressmen to “consult with their constituents” so they can identify and list the projects that would be made as line items in the budget. Is there a single congressman doing this?

It is already September next week, and with the Christmas season, there are only three months to re-do the budget, for Congress to approve it, and the President to sign it into law.

Will the legislators revise it to comply with Aquino’s declaration to change the pork barrel system? Or will they resist him? Will they delay the passage of a new appropriations act for next year until they are assured of their pork? After all, it is Congress, and Congress alone, which approves the budget, whether or not it will have pork barrel funds. Already, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte has said that he expects opposition to its scrapping.

With Aquino no longer able to give them their pork barrel, why would congressmen support him? They may even calculate that the best way to wrangle concessions from Aquino one way or another, at the same time earn press mileage, is to join the growing outrage against him. They are not ignorant of the fact that one of the surest way to get into the Senate, and even the Presidency—as in the case of Mr. Aquino—is to be so vociferously against a President.

A political landslide has fallen on Aquino’s tuwid or not-so-tuwid na daan. Study the permutations of the pork-barrel issue, and it’s obvious that it will make Aquino a lame-duck president for the rest of his term. Maybe even a sitting duck in the political battles ahead.

tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
www.rigobertotiglao.com and www.trigger.ph

http://www.manilatimes.net/without-pork-aquino-is-a-lame-duck-3/33221/

Lifestyles of the rich and famous

Grassroots & Governance
By Teresa S. Abesamis
BusinessWorld

Jeane Lim-Napoles

WHILE a third of our people often suffer involuntary hunger, there is a small minority who cannot seem to moderate their greed. What has caused our society to breed incredible obscenities such as Janet Napoles, et al? How can we have families like the super-wealthy Marcoses and their cronies, the Ampatuans and other politicians, and even jurists flaunting their obviously illicit wealth for years, and not have communities dragging them to a lynching post?

These criminals (many of whom have the gall to flaunt their material possessions in society pages) are fortunate that we are a kind people whose faith in God’s wisdom allows them to physically survive even for generations. Otherwise, our country would be a boiling pot of violence and outrage; and Filipinos would be shedding each other’s blood in the streets, as is happening now in the Middle East.

More and more, as these crimes (which is what they are, no less) are brought out in the open, we must increasingly appreciate the need to promote transparency and accountability in the use of government’s resources; and to strengthen our rule of law that penalizes crimes against the people. We are a long way from there, but recent events render these issues urgent. Heroes like Grace Pulido Tan of the Commission on Audit, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and Justice Secretary Leila De Lima who are leading the way should be cheered on and encouraged in their crucial and dangerous work.

How did we arrive at this level of shamelessness and corruption? We need to go through a process of deep reflection as a people. A radical reorientation in values and aspirations needs to be mobilized, because this is at the root of the corruption.

We must start with our leaders in governance, business, education and religion. Who are our role models? We have a retired cardinal in Cebu who lives in a private mansion equipped with a heated indoor swimming pool. And the papers report that retired Quiapo parish priest Monsignor Josefino Ramirez lives in ritzy Magallanes Village, courtesy of Janet Napoles, who perhaps hopes this gesture will ward off evil spirits and protect her from harm. Even the rebel leader Nur Misuari, at the height of his political power as governor of ARMM, is said to have spent more time in Metro Manila rather than in Mindanao. I once saw him surrounded by his surrogates having cocktails at a five-star hotel in Makati, while his constituents’ children had little access to textbooks and health care. The TV comedian Willy Revillame is reported to have recently acquired a Rolls Royce.

When I watch local television, I often have to shift channels because I cannot bear the inanities and silliness that seem to dominate our broadcast media. There seems to be little seriousness, critical thinking and edifying content. I find, strangely enough, more edifying content and depth in CCTV, the channel that is aired from the People’s Republic of China, even as I brush away some of the propaganda content. Al Jazeera, surprisingly aired from Qatar, also goes deeper into the issues, and for me, provides more balanced coverage that hardly indicates its Middle Eastern roots.

Government, obviously since the EDSA revolution, avoids too much interference in mass media content. However, there must be a way for private sector leaders to try and influence media content, especially broadcast which has the widest coverage and deepest reach of our communities. Mass media could be making more impact on our mindsets than do schools. Of course, advertisers, who mainly finance broadcasts, tend to look at cost per thousand audience members reached, and the wilder and sillier, the bigger the audience. Surely, the advertisers can also be mobilized to support edifying values-laden media content as their contribution to social responsibility. There is enough creative capability in our country for this to happen. What we need is support from advertisers and, perhaps, even government.

Perhaps, for starters, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board with majority private sector participation, or some counterpart institution, can be strengthened so that it can harness the awesome power of mass media to increasingly raise the quality of media content so that it becomes an ally in more effective human development for our country. Perhaps a percentage of primetime media content can be allocated for edifying values education. If this is done imaginatively, advertisers might support the effort. If we are to grow as a people, we cannot afford totally freewheeling mass media. It has too much power for good and evil.

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous&id=75206

The Pentagon’s plan for an air-sea battle with China

By John Lee 
Business Spectator

When China held a number of provocative military exercises in the Taiwan Straits back in 1995-1996 to intimidate then Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui against backing a pro- independence stance in the run-up to the island’s presidential elections, then US president Bill Clinton ordered the USS Independence aircraft carrier and three supporting battleships to the troubled region. With the People’s Liberation Army no match for even one American aircraft carrier group, Beijing was forced into a humiliating backdown, and the Third Taiwan Straits Crisis ended with little further incident.

One US aircraft carrier group has more firepower at its disposal than a middle-sized country. America has eleven of these, with five in the Pacific Ocean alone. But the Chinese backdown is only the beginning of the contemporary story of military competition rather than the end.

Beijing watched in awed disbelief as the United States destroyed Saddam Hussein’s forces during the First Gulf War in Iraq/Kuwait in 1990-1991 with their advanced and heavily networked arsenal. The third Taiwan Straits Crisis only reaffirmed to Beijing that it needed to undertake its own revolution in military affairs, as its millions of soldiers equipped with Cold War era armaments would stand no chance against America’s world-beating technologies.

Over the next two decades, Beijing cobbled together what is now widely referred to as its asymmetrical anti-access/area-denial or A2/AD strategy. Using land, sea, air, cyber and space military assets and technologies, the plan is to use submarines, advanced mines, and anti-ship weapons to inflict damage on American aircraft carrier groups to prevent them from entering any future combat zone or geographical areas.

Cyber and space technologies would also attempt to disrupt or disable the heavily networked American forces by taking out the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ that gives the U.S. military its superior tactical advantage. The ultimately strategy is not to necessarily win an all-out war, but to inflict prohibitive losses on American aircraft carrier groups.

This is where it gets interesting and also more than a little worrisome. America’s response to the possible threat to its overwhelming tactical superiority is the ‘operational concept’ of ‘AirSea Battle’, which is designed to “preserve America’s ability to defeat aggression and maintain escalation advantage despite the challenge posed by advanced weapons systems (wielded by China)”, according to the Pentagon. It involves developing the capacity to go deep into Chinese territory and to destroy the advanced missiles, command-and-control systems and other reconnaissance and intelligence gathering platforms needed by China to execute its A2/D2 strategy. It is called AirSea Battle because it involves the use of American planes, ships, satellites, cyber capabilities, submarines and missiles to preserve its advantage and “prevail over an opponent’s battle network”.

Air-Sea Battle

AirSea Battle has its critics – including from the defence establishment within America – because the approach seems dangerously escalatory. That is, if the AirSea Battle concept is implemented, it could leave Beijing no option but to retaliate through escalation of any military action. Some credible analysts even believe that the unintended but foreseeable consequence of AirSea Battle is an unrestrained war that could even precipitate nuclear exchanges between the two countries.

The purpose of this article is to put some of the strongest arguments from both proponents and critics of AirSea Battle, and let you decide for yourself where you stand on the debate. This article is not about whether America should maintain its forward presence in our region, or whether it should step back from (or even abandon) its five decades old role of military hegemon in providing stability and public goods to the region.

Beginning from the factual premise that America is seeking to maintain its military superiority in East and Southeast Asia, the article is about whether the AirSea Battle concept could be effective in achieving that objective, or runs the unacceptable risk of provoking China into an escalatory response that would be an unmitigated disaster.

Let’s look at the major criticism of AirSea Battle.

First Island Chain and Second Island Chain.

The concept is designed to deter China from engaging in any major, high-intensity military action from the so-called first island chain that goes from the Kuril Islands in the Russian far east, to Japan, to Taiwan, northern Philippines, Borneo and Malaysia. Remember that AirSea Battle is precisely designed to counter China’s A2/AD capabilities. For the AirSea Battle to be successful, some argue America would have to launch extensive pre-emptive strikes against targets located in Chinese continental territory – a highly provocative act. If America does not launch pre-emptively, then the AirSea Battle logic is lost, since China has been developing A2/AD capabilities for over two decades.

If so, there is an argument that the problem is two-fold. First, Beijing would have no choice but to escalate any conflict since pre-emptive attacks against its territory will not be tolerated, even if it is seriously sabre-rattling in the region at the time. A major reason behind current American attempts to improve the military-to-military relationship with China is to have ways and means to de-escalate any potential conflict. AirSea Battle might well achieve the exact opposite.

Second, if AirSea Battle becomes the primary US operational concept in a regional war with China, then the PLA has little option but to launch pre-emptive and escalatory strikes against US military assets in the region if things look like they are getting ugly. After all, if the PLA loses its A2/AD capability, then the PLA’s only prospect of success (i.e., inflicting prohibitive losses on U.S. regional military assets) is lost and the superior American forces hold all the aces.

How would proponents of AirSea Battle respond?

The first response would be that if China’s A2/AD capabilities are not contested and ultimately rebuffed, then the First Island Chain becomes what Elbridge Colby (a leading advocate of AirSea Battle) calls a “strategic free fire zone” or “no man’s land”. This would ultimately be to Beijing’s advantage, since keeping US forces away from a theatre conflict in the first island chain is precisely what China is trying to achieve. No American intervention in the East China Sea in the event of a high-intensity conflict means the beginning of the end of the U.S. security guarantee for Taiwan, Japan and possibly South Korea. Tokyo, Taipei and Seoul would subsequently rearm, possibly with nuclear weapons, and we would really have a situation with unintended consequences.

On the issue of deterrence of China, the argument for the AirSea Battle concept is that if successful, the approach would significantly decrease the capacity of the PLA to engage in any significant military exchange with American forces, thereby increasing the chances that military action against US forces would not be seriously contemplated. Even if the PLA were foolhardy enough to try, it would realise quickly that the costs far outweigh the benefits of escalating any conflict.

Moreover, as long as US forces are sufficiently protected such that the PLA were not able to launch pre-emptive attacks against American military assets that would disable AirSea Battle as an option, China is unlikely to try. Note that AirSea Battle would allow multiple levels of escalation such that the PLA would have several opportunities to step back. In this sense, proponents of AirSea Battle would argue that those warning about inevitable escalation to nuclear war fail to understand the flexibility that AirSea Battle offers. It is not a ‘total war or nothing’ operational doctrine; it is about maintaining American freedom of action at every step of the escalatory process.

Besides, AirSea Battle proponents would argue that without such an American capacity to call upon in the event of likely or actual Chinese aggression, the PLA would have less inhibition when it comes to initiating and/or escalating a high intensity conflict within the first island chain.

My view: it comes down to whether AirSea Battle works, and this comes down to actual capability and execution. If the PLA is convinced that American forces can win every escalatory step, then they are unlikely to escalate. America can help its cause by choosing its targets at each step of the process carefully. For example, one should not immediately target the PLA’s primary command and control platforms, or the senior civilian leadership, as that would escalate the conflict several levels beyond what is required.

But if China’s A2/AD capabilities remain largely intact after the initial exchanges, and having suffered attacks against targets physically located deep in Chinese continental territory, Beijing will have little political choice but to push the PLA to escalate the war, and deploy its full range of A2/AD and other capabilities in imposing prohibitive costs on American forces. If China can take down an actual aircraft carrier, or else significant degrade an American carrier group, Washington might reconsider whether the defence of Taipei or Tokyo is still warranted.

For now, America’s naval forces in East and Southeast Asia are likely able to repel the PLA without suffering unacceptable losses. AirSea Battle is preparing for a future when this might no longer be the case.

Both sides, especially China, have much to lose in the event of war. But this logic has not been successful in preventing countless major wars in the past; unintended escalation and misperception is often behind the bloodiest tragedies. Let’s hope the AirSea Battle concept will never actually be tested in a hot war – not least because Australian alliance commitments could mean that we might have to be a reluctant participant.

Dr John Lee is the Michael Hintze Fellow and adjunct associate professor at the Centre for International Security Studies, Sydney University. He is also a non-resident senior scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC and a director of the Kokoda Foundation in Canberra.

Read more:http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/21/china/pentagons-plan-air-sea-battle-china#ixzz2cdM3lcIx

Whose credible defense posture?

By REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

‘We are mere pawns being used by the US. Why can’t our leaders get that into their thick heads?’

US-Philippines talks on bases access.

The reason advanced for the proposed increased presence of American troops and facilities on our soil is that it will give us a “credible defense posture” against an increasingly aggressive China in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea. The implication is that the US will fight China in case she attacks us.

That will never happen. US relations with China are so much more important to her than her relations with us. We are mere pawns being used by the US. Why can’t our leaders get that into their thick heads?

As reported by one newspaper, some AFP officials share this view… “We know it. They will not go to war with China because of us. They are just here to protect their own interests in the Asia-Pacific region,” one of them said.

***

If at all, it is the US that wants a “credible defense posture” in these parts vis-à-vis China. That is the reason she decided to rebalance her forces by pivoting to this region after her misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, China is now the second biggest economy in the world.

Has that ever occurred to our ingenuous but hopelessly naive leaders? Obviously not. With leaders like them, it is a foregone conclusion the US will get what she wants.

So now, poor Juan de la Cruz will once again face the consequences of having a large and indefinite presence of US troops on our shores and suffer the indignities of being treated like a second-class citizen in his own country, shot at for being mistaken as a boar and, worse, regarded by the international community as an unabashed American lackey.

An unnamed official was reported to have said that American forces operate a base inside Camp Navarro, headquarters of the Western Mindanao Command in Zamboanga City. Filipino officers and men are denied entry to the US base.

Another official also reportedly said that the Americans are camped right inside the AFP Headquarters in Camp Aguinaldo where they operate communications equipment that are so powerful that they usually disrupt signals from other communications facilities at the camp. The place is also reportedly off limits to DND and military officials.

***

Like it or not, however, the US will eventually get what she wants. That’s almost a certainty, given the attitude of our so-called leaders. The only thing that is to be hoped for is for us to be able to exact fair concessions from the US, among them: – rental of $2 to $3 billion annually in cash; settlement of what is rightfully due to all of our WWII veterans who fought side by side with the Americans; US commitment not to bring nuclear weapons or materiel into the country (no more of that “neither-confirm-nor-deny” bullshit); clean up their toxic wastes when they leave; leave all the equipment they bring in to the country when they go.

***

The first round of negotiations between PHL and US representatives was held last Wednesday. The US side reportedly tabled a draft agreement. No mention has been made that we have one of our own. If that is the case, the two panels are now working on a US draft. Advantage, US.

The next round will be held in Washington later this month. There goes whatever transparency there may be if the talks were held here. In Washington, no Filipino journalist will have any access to officials involved in the negotiations.

If I were President Noynoy Aquino I would insist that all the rounds should be held here. In Washington, our team will be at a very distinct disadvantage. They will have to communicate regularly with Manila on the negotiations’ progress. None of the things they report to or instructions they receive from Manila will escape the US. Remember Ed Snowden?

***

Foreign Secretary Albert “Amboy” del Rosario insists that the accord that would increase the presence of US troops and facilities in the country will be in the form of an executive agreement only and that it will be within bounds of the Constitution.

Wrong!

Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution states that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

Note that aside from foreign military bases, the presence of foreign military troops OR facilities are also not allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as such by the other contracting party. Ergo, the insistence by our officials about not giving bases to the US is nothing but malarkey.

So there. That’s as clear as daylight.

***

Not too long ago, a US military drone was found floating off the coast of Masbate soon after a military exercise had been concluded.

Questions were asked about where the drone could have come from. No one in the defense or foreign affairs departments had an answer. Someone said it may have drifted there from Guam where a military exercise was also held?!

Now, the cat is out of the bag. Del Rosario has confirmed that the US has been using drones in our territory. Talk about transparency.

Daang matuwid? No way!

***

President Noynoy Aquino says he now enjoys being president.

I don’t believe it.

How could he with all the problems and contentious issues strewn all over his “daang matuwid”?

Let’s start with the horrifying (kahindik-hindik, according to COA chairman Grace Pulido Tan) revelations about the abuse of the pork barrel.

Noynoy said in his last SONA: “We will not undermine the orders of our Bosses to hold the corrupt accountable, and to right the wrongs of a system that has long beggared our country.”

The pork barrel is a system that has long beggared our country. It must be abolished! It has mind-bogglingly corrupted many of our top leaders, past and present. I do not think Noynoy will have a better chance to prove once and for all that he is serious about daang matuwid. He should heed immediately the clamor of his Bosses that is growing by the day to abolish the pork barrel.

But first, Noynoy will have to give up HIS pork barrel. As president, he doesn’t need one. All the government departments and agencies and their resources are under his command! The powers of the presidency are so enormous. He does not have to cater to anyone. He cannot run for re-election.

Giving up his is the only way I believe the senators, congressmen and others who have pork barrel in one form or another will give up theirs without much of a resistance. Noynoy should not let pass and squander this golden opportunity to keep his daang matuwid straight and narrow. If he does, he can forget about leaving a lasting legacy less than three years from now.

Sayang!!!

***

Alleged queen of scams Janet Lim-Napoles and her brother have flown the coop and left the people askance.

Wasn’t she considered a flight risk? Wasn’t she in fact placed on the lookout list of the Bureau of Immigration? Does it not stand to reason she should have been kept under constant surveillance by the DOJ/NBI?

Did not the DOJ have prior knowledge of the Makati court’s issuance of an arrest warrant against Napoles? Obviously, Napoles beat the DOJ to the punch. What does that tell you?

Nonetheless, the DOJ should put up a substantial reward for the capture of the fugitives (dead or alive?), instead of calling for citizen’s arrest of the two. That won’t work.

***

Adding to the present woes of Noynoy is his Kabarilan-friend, Land Transportation Office chief Virginia Torres.

Torres was caught on video at a casino seated quite comfortably with her feet resting on a foot rest (what else?) and her right hand poised to press the button on a slot machine.

Yet, while admitting that it was she on the video, she said she was merely reading the instructions on the machine. Huh? She also claims she was in the casino waiting for a friend who invited her to dinner. Dinner at a casino? Surely she must know that government officials are not supposed to go to casinos.

Torres it was who earlier figured in a reported irregularity in the LTO. She was told to go on leave and was later reinstated by Noynoy.

As early as March this year, LTO has been unable to provide 2013 stickers to those renewing the registration of their vehicles. Shouldn’t Torres be looking into the problem instead of playing the slot machine in a casino?

Daang matuwid? No way!

Let’s watch how Noynoy will deal with this one. Reminds me of the case of another Kabarilan-friend of Noynoy, Rico E. Puno, who goofed, was reinstated, goofed again. Wonder where he is now.

***

I do not wish to sound like a doomsayer, but the much-hoped for peace in Mindanao may not happen soon.

The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari has reportedly declared independence from the Republic. That means rebellion and rebellion is usually coupled with armed hostilities. It also means the MNLF does not support the Framework Agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Déjà vu? When the peace accord between the MNLF and the government was reached establishing the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the MILF did not like it and thereafter broke away from the MNLF. Now, the tables are turned. History has repeated itself but the government appears to be in denial of it.

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s action):

1) Filing of charges against officials of the National Food Authority (NFA) during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documentary evidence to prove the venalities in the past in that agency.

2) Investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia and ordering his successor, Robert Vergara, to file the proper charges, if warranted, against the former.

Noynoy should also order Vergara to report to him on COA’s findings that:

(a) He received the obscenely excessive compensation of p16.36 million last year making him the highest paid government servant and;

(b) That at least 4.13 billion in contributions and loan payments made by 12 government offices to the GSIS had not been credited to the offices as of Dec. 31, 2011.

COA also said the amount of unrecorded remittances could go much higher because only 36 agencies have so far responded out of the 186 that were sent confirmation requests by government auditors. Of the 36, 27 confirmed “discrepancies” in their premium and loan payments ledgers when compared with those of the GSIS.

There are three questions being raised when remittances, or parts thereof, of government agencies are not recorded by the GSIS on time: a) Where are these huge sums “parked” in the meantime?; b) Do they earn interest?; and c) To where (whom?) does the interest, if any, go?

3) Facilitating the investigation of rampant corruption in the military and police establishments.

4) Expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos.

***

Today is the 114th day of the seventh year of Jonas Burgos’ disappearance.

Whatever happened to Noynoy’s directive to the NBI to conduct a “focused, dedicated and exhaustive” probe of what really happened to Jonas?! Your bosses want to know, Mr. President.

***

Email: roacrosshairs@outlook.com

US help in maritime security key focus area in framework deal

By Mario J. Mallari
The Daily Tribune

DFA Asst. Sec. Carlos Sorreta and DND Usec Pio Lorenzo Batino.

Amid tension with China over the disputed South China Sea, the Philippine government is pushing joint activities with the United States military to boost maritime security and maritime domain awareness.

Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino, chairman of the Philippine panel negotiating a framework agreement on the increased rotational presence (IRP) for US military in the Philippines, said these were among the “key areas” the Philippines wants to focus during the negotiations.

“There should be focus on high-impact, high-value exercises and activities that will focus on maritime security, maritime domain awareness and our perrennial problem with disasters,” he stressed.

China has sharply criticized the Aquino administration for entering into a negotiation with the US for IRP in the Philippines, saying such “move could challenge favorable atmosphere for peace in Asia Pacific.”

In an article quoting various Chinese experts, the China Daily, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government, said the new development could also “harm Washington’s interests.”

“The Philippines should give up its vain hope that the United States will allow whatever it wants to safeguard its claims in the South China Sea, although Washington always tries to keep tension in the region to a certain degree,” the newspaper said.

“More military presence from the US, an outside power, will bring more uncertainties in the South China Sea and harm Washington’s own economic interests in the region,” the newspaper quoted Wang Fan, a professor of international affairs at China Foreign Affairs University.

“The US will not allow the Philippines to do whatever it wants to do with its territorial disputes with China at the cost of general stability in the Asia-Pacific region,” Wang was quoted as saying.

“The US is willing to keep the tension in the South China Sea at a certain degree,” Li Guoqiang, deputy director of the Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said according to China Daily.

“The tension offers a good excuse for Washington to deploy more military forces to the Asia-Pacific region under its Asia rebalancing strategy, given that some regional countries may ask the US for help to cope with territorial disputes,” he added.

Batino, however, ruled out any joint combat exercise that will involve US troops in the internal insurgency, saying the Supreme Court had already made it clear that American military forces could not take part in this activity.

“In one case, the Supreme Court already placed limitations in the operations of the US in the Philippines and we are strictly abiding with the doctrine enunciated in that case,” he said.

According to Batino, while both panels have yet to finalize the types of the activities the US will be allowed to do in the Philippines, the Department of National Defense would like to see an agreement that would help the capability build-up of the military in maritime security and disaster response and humanitarian relief.

Manila and Washington last Wednesday started discussions on the details of the agreement that will give US troops and defense equipment temporary access to Philippine military camps — an arrangement that will help the country achieve a minimum credible defense amid territorial threats and modernize the Armed Forces.

http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/18116-us-help-in-maritime-security-key-focus-area-in-framework-deal

Whither the PDAF?

By DUCKY PAREDES
MALAYA

‘I suggest that we get back on track by going back to why the PDAF was created – to fund projects needed by the districts whose needs are best known to and served by their congressmen.’

Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan

WHY not give PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Funds) only to District Congressmen and not a centavo to senators and partylist congressmen?

This seems reasonable after finding out from a Commission on Audit (COA) report that at least half of the Senate and close to half of our congressmen spent P6.156 billion in pork barrel funds using 82 questionable non-government organizations (NGOs) from 2007 to 2009.

Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan is careful not to suggest anything, even after she was obviously shocked to find that 10 of the dubious NGOs had links to controversial businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, while six had links to sponsoring lawmakers through relatives.

Clearly, the PDAF has been corrupted as another easy way to steal from the government. The congressmen and senators will try to explain themselves and like the charlatans and criminals caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, they will create stories that will make it very difficult to accept them as the honorable legislators they pretend to be.

Yet, it is not all legislative chicanery.

The Department of Budget and Management also approved P20 million in Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) to a nonexistent lawmaker, a certain Luis Abalos. (I wonder who actually took that money and how this was spent!)

***

From 2007 to 2009, 74 lawmakers exceeded their pork barrel allocations by hundreds of millions. Each congressman has an allocation of P70 million and each senator P200 million a year in PDAF. Yet, most asked for even more and were granted more funds than others.

Who are these?

The COA report linked questionable fund releases to Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile; former senators Edgardo Angara, Juan Flavier, Ramon Magsaysay Jr., Manuel Villar, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Francis Pangilinan and Rodolfo Biazon; and Senators Alan Peter Cayetano, Jinggoy Estrada, Gregorio Honasan, Lito Lapid, Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Ramon “Bong” Revilla, not necessarily in that order.

Notes Chairman Pulido-Tan: “A total of P6.156 billion was transferred by the agencies to 82 NGOs. This came from the PDAFs of 12 senators and around 180 representatives.

“Ten of the NGOs, which received a total of P2.157 billion, are presently linked to Janet Lim Napoles. Six other NGOs, on the other hand, which received a total of P189 million, were found to have included the legislators whose PDAF was transferred to the NGO, or a relative, as incorporator (or) officer.”

***

There are hard and soft projects. Buildings, roads and other infra are hard projects and P1.393 billion from the PDAFs went to these hard projects. What was more interesting were the soft projects where more money went, all of P2.034 billion. Soft projects are those where the expense defies inspection, such as expenses for food, printed materials, training aides, trainers and so on.

COA found that the DBM failed to efficiently monitor and keep proper records of the fund releases of each legislator. The DBM could not provide a complete schedule of releases despite repeated requests.

What the COA found was that 74 legislators exceeded their allocations by hundreds of millions and one by P3 billion.

Many congressmen funded projects outside of their districts. Implementing agencies simply followed whatever the congressmen and Senators ordered, contrary to the DBM’s own rules.

There was also no assessment of the agencies’ capabilities to implement the projects, which means the releases were made essentially at the behest of the sponsoring legislators.

Implementing agencies simply transferred the funds to the NGOs identified or selected by the legislators. This runs counter to the rules of the Government Procurement and Policy Board.

“Even assuming the existence of appropriation or ordinance, the NGOs were not selected through competitive bidding as required by the resolution. The agencies merely relied on the endorsement of the legislators, some of whom denied their participation or signatures in letters and documents,” Tan says.

***

I look at the PDAF as an experiment that rose out of EDSA Uno, when the people became as of one, kicked out the dictator and decided that they would now rule themselves. As part of this experiment, in the held belief that the congressmen were in the best position to know what their districts needed, the PDAF was created — equal funds for each congressman to be spent on what was needed by his district.

At that time, I remembered congressmen who were amazed that even those of them in the opposition, during the Cory years, were being given their PDAFs, same as everyone else. Of course, that was part of the experiment. Sadly, not only congressmen received their PDAFs. Even Senators who are elected by national vote were also given their PDAFs, which was three times larger than those of the congressmen even if they had no districts to speak of.

(Later, with the establishment of the partylist, these new congressmen who represented the under-represented and who also have no districts to care for, being also elected by the national vote, were given the same allocation as the district congressmen. I don’t know about you but wasn’t the signal to our legislators that this was money that they could spend as they pleased? Not necessarily for their districts but for whatever they had to buy or spend on? )

I suggest that we get back on track by going back to why the PDAF was created — to fund projects needed by the districts whose needs are best known to and served by their congressmen. As for the partylists, who knows that if there were no PDAFs for them, we may have less partylists competing for the honor (without PDAFs) of representing the under-represented. And, regarding our Senators, let’s keep them honest by keeping funds like PDAFs away from them. Then, perhaps, people like Janet may not even want to meet them. Why the heck would she be interested in anyone without any PDAFs?

***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@gmail.com or you can send me a message through Twitter @diretsahan.